Anyone dislike series?

[JSWolf]

Originally Posted by Catlady

Suppose a writer sets several novels in, say, Hollywood, and various actual celebrities appear repeatedly as background characters, to lend a sense of place and verisimilitude. But the books are otherwise unrelated and tell independent stories with different protagonists. Wouldn't those be stand-alones despite having the same backdrop?

That depends if the background celebrities story arcs continue from book to book or are different and have nothing to do with any of the other books. For example, if something happens to one celebrity and that something is mentioned in another book, then that would make the books part of a series.

[DiapDealer]

Originally Posted by Catlady

Suppose a writer sets several novels in, say, Hollywood, and various actual celebrities appear repeatedly as background characters, to lend a sense of place and verisimilitude. But the books are otherwise unrelated and tell independent stories with different protagonists. Wouldn't those be stand-alones despite having the same backdrop?

If so, why would the backdrop being fictional land those same books in your self-contained category?

It wouldn't. The actual celebrities aren't fictional. Neither is Hollywood. So the backdrop isn't fictional.

Originally Posted by Catlady

Because too many books then morph into series books when they really are stand-alones. When the only connection is a location and a handful of minor characters, there's no logical reason to go by publication date. It's actually BECAUSE I am a stickler for reading series books in order that I would make the distinction.

Though publication order is important to me (with regard to connected books), it's actually the least of my concerns for this particular exercise. I'm perfectly capable of deciding when I can read books by the same author in any order I want. But that's predicated on ME actually KNOWING that books are connected in a way that would be likely to influence my decision. Authors and other readers playing fast and loose with the term "stand-alone" make it much more difficult for me to know how I should tackle an author's works in such a way to best appease my personal sense of "order."

[Cinisajoy]

I would say Flowers in the Attic could be read alone. Petals on the Wind, you need to read Flowers first. That was one author that had to read in order.

Her after death books are not new books but old manuscripts with names and places changed.

[DiapDealer]

I really don't get why people think "could be read alone" is somehow synonymous with "should (or was intended to) be read alone!" Or that "could be read alone" is even in any way objectively defined for all readers.

No two readers' coulds are the same. So such a statement is fairly unhelpful.

[Cinisajoy]

Originally Posted by DiapDealer

I really don't get why people think "could be read alone" is somehow synonymous with "should (or was intended) to be read alone."

No two readers' coulds are the same. So such a statement is fairly unhelpful.

Could be because it was first. Would you want to? I don't know. Depends on if you liked it enough to continue the very short series of 3 or 4 books. I don't remember.

[4691mls]

Originally Posted by DiapDealer

I really don't get why people think "could be read alone" is somehow synonymous with "should (or was intended to) be read alone!" Or that "could be read alone" is even in any way objectively defined for all readers.

No two readers' coulds are the same. So such a statement is fairly unhelpful.

I guess before you take someone up on their recommendation for a "standalone" book, you need to ask how they define "standalone". I absolutely understand wanting to know if a book is part of a series so you can make your own decision as to whether or not to read out of order.

Personally, I usually like to read the first book in a series first. If I really like the book, I will probably read the rest of the series in order. If I find the book to be OK but not great (the kind of book I might read as a time-filler while waiting for a better book to be available) I might read other books in the so-so series in whatever order they happen to become available for checkout from the library. If I am not very invested in the story/characters then spoilers are less likely to bother me.

[ZodWallop]

Originally Posted by DiapDealer

...Authors and other readers playing fast and loose with the term "stand-alone" make it much more difficult for me to know how I should tackle an author's works in such a way to best appease my personal sense of "order."

I've always said the world would be a better place if only other people did things in accordance with the way I think things should be.

[ZodWallop]

Originally Posted by DiapDealer

I really don't get why people think "could be read alone" is somehow synonymous with "should (or was intended to) be read alone!" Or that "could be read alone" is even in any way objectively defined for all readers.

No two readers' coulds are the same. So such a statement is fairly unhelpful.

To me (particularly with Cin's example) "could be read alone" implies that the first book was a true stand alone that only later had sequels tacked on when the author needed to remodel their house or send their kid to a fancier school.

Psycho could (and should) be read alone. Does the fact that a quarter of a century later Bloch decided to write a couple of sequels then make Psycho a series?

Is Gone With the Wind now 'self contained' rather than 'stand alone'?

[BenG]

Jo Walton has a good article on the kinds of series at Tor.com.
So, What Sort of Series Do You Like?


And another article:
Here’s Some More: Long Series, Novels and Chunks

[DiapDealer]

Originally Posted by ZodWallop

Is Gone With the Wind now 'self contained' rather than 'stand alone'?

Does it hurt a single little thing to call it self-contained now that it's part of a greater whole? I certainly don't see how it would. Stand alone books become part of series all the time. I'm interested in the now; not the then.

[ZodWallop]

Originally Posted by DiapDealer

Does it hurt a single little thing to call it self-contained now that it's part of a greater whole? I certainly don't see how it would. Stand alone books become part of series all the time. I'm interested in the now; not the then.

Except for the fact that I don't care a whit about Gone with the Wind, yeah, I do think it's a bit of an insult to now label it as 'self contained' rather than 'stand alone' It was a massive, landmark book. If Margaret Mitchell wanted there to be sequels, she would have written them. The sequels were obvious cash-ins trading on the history Gone with the Wind had built up.

I think what it is is that it somehow says that now GwtW must be considered according to how it fits in to the overall, larger series. That book may be a racist bit of clap trap. But it still deserves better than that.

[DiapDealer]

Originally Posted by ZodWallop

Except for the fact that I don't care a whit about Gone with the Wind, yeah, I do think it's a bit of an insult to now label it as 'self contained' rather than 'stand alone' It was a massive, landmark book. If Margaret Mitchell wanted there to be sequels, she would have written them. The sequels were obvious cash-ins trading on the history Gone with the Wind had built up.

I think what it is is that it somehow says that now GwtW must now be considered according to how it fits in to the overall, larger series. That book may be a racist bit of clap trap. But it still deserves better than that.

That's on you, man. My labeling system doesn't factor in any value judgements. it neither intends, nor confers, any insult.

I personally don't read sequels, prequels, or installments that are "authorized" by dead authors' estates. But if other people want to, then I feel no particular compulsion to try and convince them that the original book isn't really part of the later "Gone with the Wind" series they've enjoyed. *shrug*

[ZodWallop]

Originally Posted by DiapDealer

That's on you, man. My labeling system doesn't factor in any value judgements. it neither intends, nor confers, any insult.

The same could be said for your concerns of "authors playing fast and loose with the term 'stand-alone'." The whole argument doesn't amount to much of a hill of beans anyway, I suppose.

As for any possible harm, if I came upon Dune, Psycho, Flowers in the Attic or Gone with the Wind and heard that each was the first book in a series, I'd likely give them a pass as I don't care for series.

Knowing that each is actually a stand-alone that was followed on by inferior sequels, I will read them.

I personally don't read sequels, prequels, or installments that are "authorized" by dead authors' estates. But if other people want to, then I feel no particular compulsion to try and convince them that the original book isn't really part of the later "Gone with the Wind" series they've enjoyed. *shrug*

I don't worry about other people reading any sort of authorized follow-up, fan fics or whatever flips their skirt. But if I were describing Gone with the Wind to someone, it would never occur to me to describe it as the 'self contained first book in the GwtW saga.'

[DiapDealer]

Originally Posted by ZodWallop

But if I were describing Gone with the Wind to someone, it would never occur to me to describe it as the 'self contained first book in the GwtW saga.'

Maybe not. But if someone asked you if Gone with the Wind was part of a series, would you say "no," or "yes, but ..." ?

[issybird]

Originally Posted by DiapDealer

Maybe not. But if someone asked you if Gone with the Wind was part of a series, would you say "no," or "yes, but ..." ?

That's easy. "No." Pride and Prejudice isn't part of a series, either.